web site programs

[Greg Schmidt]

Re: web site programs

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:28:10 GMT, "Jonathan Snook"
<goto_www.snook .ca@snook.ca> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Brian" <brian@wfcr.org .invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message
>news:OciRa.793 74$N7.9136@sccr nsc03...[color=green]
>> Ron Bott wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > I'm curious what you design professionals are using to create web pages
>> > with, text editors or WYSIWYG programs.[/color]
>>
>> The web is not wysiwyg. Any program which claims to be wysiwyg is a
>> fraud. imho.[/color]
>
>that's dramatic. Do you argue when your car only gets 32mpg instead of 33?[/color]

My web site viewed in Lynx looks nothing like it does in any wysiwyg
editor I've ever seen. If the site is the least bit complex, then the
same can be said for WebTV and Netscape 4 (among others). I haven't
looked at web sites with a Palm Pilot or similar, but I bet the same is
true there too. My web site may also look very different when viewed by
someone with some user stylesheet rules.

I think the point Brian was making is that you can't predict what
conditions your site may be viewed under, so anything that claims to
show you what your site "looks like" is at best telling part of the
story.

And if my car was claimed to get 33mpg (with no disclaimers) and it only
got 25 because I always drive in the city, then you can bet I'd argue.

--
Greg Schmidt (gregs@trawna.c om)
Trawna Publications (http://www.trawna.com/)

[Jonathan Snook]

Re: web site programs


"Greg Schmidt" <gregs@trawna.c om> wrote in message
news:dp5ehvkfi6 5cakrcee4pj8rj9 hp6vivdid@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> I think the point Brian was making is that you can't predict what
> conditions your site may be viewed under, so anything that claims to
> show you what your site "looks like" is at best telling part of the
> story.[/color]

Maybe I've just come to expect that WYSIWYG doesn't mean "exactly what you
get". In fact, what file format is EXACTLY the same on all platforms in any
program used to access that file?
[color=blue]
> And if my car was claimed to get 33mpg (with no disclaimers) and it only
> got 25 because I always drive in the city, then you can bet I'd argue.[/color]

I think that's funny but somehow I don't think you were joking. Why in the
world do we need disclaimers on everything? If I make a product I'll just
put this in the documentation: "This may not work exactly like you thought."
Anyways, I'm getting completely off topic so I'll stop now. :)

Jonathan

[Greg Schmidt]

Re: web site programs

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:31:36 GMT, "Jonathan Snook"
<goto_www.snook .ca@snook.ca> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Greg Schmidt" <gregs@trawna.c om> wrote in message
>news:dp5ehvkfi 65cakrcee4pj8rj 9hp6vivdid@4ax. com...[color=green]
>> I think the point Brian was making is that you can't predict what
>> conditions your site may be viewed under, so anything that claims to
>> show you what your site "looks like" is at best telling part of the
>> story.[/color]
>
>Maybe I've just come to expect that WYSIWYG doesn't mean "exactly what you
>get". In fact, what file format is EXACTLY the same on all platforms in any
>program used to access that file?[/color]

That's quite right. Word and the like are also not true WYSIWYG
applications (Acrobat is close). The term originated with applications
(e.g. desktop publishing) that showed exactly the same on the screen as
you got when you printed it. (Remember that this was before there were
many real cross-platform apps or file formats.) The previous generation
(e.g. word processors) were still operating in a text-based world so
they couldn't do things like show different fonts on the screen, and
hence you actually had to print it to SWYG.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> And if my car was claimed to get 33mpg (with no disclaimers) and it only
>> got 25 because I always drive in the city, then you can bet I'd argue.[/color]
>
>I think that's funny but somehow I don't think you were joking.[/color]

It was not intended to be completely serious, but rather to show a hole
in your analogy. Cars are always sold with two mileages quoted (highway
and city) for just this reason. If Dreamweaver or others claimed to be
"WYSI close to WYG in modern browsers on desktop computers", or came up
with some catchy new phrase that had this meaning, then there would be
no problem. But (to get back on topic) HTML editing apps which claim to
be WYSIWYG give the naive user false expectations, and the result is web
pages that break badly outside of the narrow scope that they were
targeted at.
[color=blue]
>Why in the
>world do we need disclaimers on everything? If I make a product I'll just
>put this in the documentation: "This may not work exactly like you thought."
>Anyways, I'm getting completely off topic so I'll stop now. :)[/color]

I blame it on the lawyers. I believe that almost every disclaimer you
see is the result of a lawsuit that someone lost because the disclaimer
wasn't there on an earlier version and some moron hurt themselves using
the microwave to dry their underwire bra while in the bathtub, but they
got a better lawyer than the microwave or bra or bathtub company did.
(Again, only half kidding)

Disclaimer: Word, Acrobat and Dreamweaver are probably all registered
trademarks of somebody or other and I'm very sorry that I've used them.
:-)

--
Greg Schmidt (gregs@trawna.c om)
Trawna Publications (http://www.trawna.com/)

[EightNineThree]

Re: web site programs


"Tim Lister" <tal@pacific.co m.au> wrote in message
news:3f188872.1 60402336@news.p acific.net.au.. .[color=blue]
> Brian <brian@wfcr.org .invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
> ... snip ...[color=green]
> >EightNineThr ee wrote:[color=darkred]
> >>
> >>>>I'm curious what you design professionals are using to create web[/color][/color][/color]
pages[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>>with, text editors or WYSIWYG programs.[/color][/color]
> ... snip ...[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Dreamweaver isn't any more or less likely to dump out "lousy code" than
> >> someone using Notepad.[/color][/color]
> ... snip ...[color=green]
> >I retract the statement about lousy code. It's true that I'm judging
> >Dreamweaver based on the sites I've seen coded with that program, and
> >that it is not necessarily a fair criteria with which to judge the
> >software.[/color]
> ... snip ...
>
> hey, guys, HTML was designed to give text STRUCTURE, not presentation.
>[/color]


No shit, really?
What does that have to do with Dreamweaver?

[color=blue]
> Dreamweaver can be OK, if you get some eggspurt to set it up with the
> right default templates to match the needs of your audience (e.g:
> accessibility), and apply the flashy tricks as a coat of paint over
> the top, so if they stop working, you don't have to care, because the
> page is strongly structured in depth.[/color]

I guess that "eggspurt" would be me.

[color=blue]
> the "Best in 800x600 IE6.0" brigade are a bit precious,[/color]

WTF does "Best in 800x600 IE6.0" have to do with Dreamweaver?

[color=blue]
> this is helped by using PHP and MySQL to manage content and
> auto-snapshot the dataset as pages of html that only change when the
> database entries change.[/color]

Again, WTF does PHP and MySQL have to do with Dreamweaver?

I manage over 760 pages (not counting the near infinite dynamic pages
created via db queries) on the internet with PHP/ MySQL, ALL OF THEM having
some involvement from Dreamweaver and ALL OF THEM valid HTML 4.01 or XHTML
1.0 (150+ of them strict and laid out with CSS).

Again, I love people who try to bust on Dreamweaver - especially when their
sites look like yours.

Get it through your head: Any tool will create a mess in the hands of the
wrong mechanic. But a good mechanic can do whatever he needs no matter what
tool he uses.


--
Karl Core

Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.

[Peter Connolly]

Re: web site programs

"Ron Bott" <ronbott@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:3F157F40.F 898BFD0@yahoo.c om...[color=blue]
> I'm curious what you design professionals are using to create web pages
> with, text editors or WYSIWYG programs. Which is the way to go for
> professinal quality code?
>
> Ron Bott
>[/color]

Professional code and quality code don't always (in fact, rarely) go
together. Remember, a professional web designer is just a person who gets
paid to produce web pages. It doesn't mean that they're any good at it.

You've probably realised that you've kicked off the perennial 'Dreamweaver
vs. Notepad' debate again; see also 'PC vs. Mac', 'Unix vs. Windows', 'Atari
vs. Amiga', et al...it's been going on for years, and it doesn't really
answer your question.

Dreamweaver is the defacto standard for web developers *who use a web
development tool* ...and there are lots of people who *do* just use textpad.

In the real world, use whatever you're comfortable with and whichever you've
got. If you have Dreamweaver, use it; if you have Notepad, use that. It's
not important how you get the code written in the first place, but what the
code looks like when it's finished. Whichever tool you use, supplement it
with some good books.

What do I use? I use the tool/s that work for me. But it won't necessarily
be the same toolset that you should use; select your own weapon, and learn
how to write standardised html. Whatever you choose, you'll eventually be
working in raw html, but there's no disgrace in getting a little help before
you're at that point. And once you get paid for your first site, you're a
professional just like the rest of us...regardless of how good your code is!

Regards,

Pete.